I think the problem is the heresy that Mass facing the people and in the vernacular has wrought. The Mass is a convivial meal based on the Last Supper. It is institutionalized Kumbaya. Even the cross to the side of the altar is a resurrected Christ. The sacrificial aspect of the Mass is symbolically nullified, although if the priest prays the Eucharistic Prayer in a way that it appears the words of the prayer, especially the words of institution, are directed to the congregation, it is illicit but still a valid Mass.
There is a Protestant Gospel tune called 'Welcome Table". It sings about how the person will sit at the welcome table and, among other things, "Tell God how you treated me". This is interesting in the desire for self elevation and peerage with our Saviour. The Gospel tune seems almost certainly to come from American Slave roots, so we might excuse the composer for the desire for overdue recognition. But the need for this conceit is excused by circumstances that, on deeper reflection, are unsettling when I consider how the composer was led to this circumstance by someone's misdeeds. So how does this sanctuary help the parishioner be humble himself, fiat voluntas tua, as a sacrafice? If we are giong to sit at the table with Christ are we willing, the next morning to bear his Cross? This makes me think of the recruit who joins the military because he likes the uniforms and does not fathom the cost of he is about to pay.
What's funny is that it compositionally only works if the priest is ad orientem. Otherwise it looks like Jesus invited the priest to join Him at the table only for him to say "nah, I got my own thing going on" and turn his back to Jesus.
Also, it looks like a projected image from a children's book.
Referring to the Mass as the Lord's Supper is to use a Protestant term (see article 28 of the 39 Articles). The Council of Trent does not use it, nor does Vatican II (SC refers to the 'sacrifice of the Mass' or the 'Eucharistic sacrifice').
However, the 1969 GIRM has 'Cena dominica sive Missa'. As most of us know, this was withdrawn and reissued the following year with a new preamble. In addition, the word order of the above was changed to 'Missa seu Cena dominica'. The English translation has 'Mass - that is the Lord's Supper' which is deliberately misleading, since 'seu' does not mean 'id est'.
What Catholics call Mass is not the same as that which Protestants call the Lord's Supper - the theology is different - and to conflate the terms is at best mischievous, and at worst heretical.
The two images together, in that fashion, is absurd. The Jesuits prior to Vatican II often included the Last Supper on the front of ad orientem altars. Sacred Heart in Augusta and St. Joseph in Macon are examples, but above the altar was always a crucifix of some kind.
The Mass isn't the reenactment of the Last Supper of Holy Thursday, which is what is implied in the photo and that architecture. Holy Thursday's Paschal meal was the means by which the one Sacrifice of Jesus would be renewed in an unbloody (glorified) way, the Real Presence of Christ, the Risen Lord would be offered to the Father with His acceptance of Christ's Sacrifice and then returned to us, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity during the Rite of Holy Communion, with the priest concluding the Sacrifice by his consumption of the Holocaust.
Apart from that, the most important thing about Holy Thursday is the institution of the priesthood to offer that Sacrifice perpetually until the Lord returns, not to be the chef of a meal or at worst a moderator of a meal.
Looking closely at the image, I notice it is "post-Resurrection" since Jesus has the marks of the nails in his wrists. And you can see the feet with the nail prints as if through the table, and a slash in the robe on His right side, indicating the wound of the lance. So I guess it depicts imagined scenes of Jesus sharing food with the disciples after His resurrection. I'm not sure what that is trying to say about the Eucharist. I find the fact that Our Lord's hands are closed in fists even more puzzling. I would think hands lifted as if in a blessing would be more appropriate. It's hard to imagine what the artist was trying to convey. But hey, there's a woman there, so there's that. And way off to the right you can see a shadowy crucifixion scene, in the style of the JPII crucifix, and one other empty cross.
And I think the image might have mirror like qualities, because it appears you can see a reflection of some of the congregation. I would guess that would be the cutesy idea that at Mass we are a part of the meal with the Jesus and the disciples.
Besides the questionable theology inspiring it, it's just bad art, and not worthy of the altar of God. As someone said above, it looks like a drawing from a children's book.
The "crucifix" to the left is even more weird. The posture of the corpus looks to me like a guy about to make a high dive from a platform. I get the idea Our Lord is straining to break free of the nails and fly off the cross. That does not convey the suffering and death He suffered to save us from our sins, but I'm not versed enough in modernistic theology to know what that's all about.
Seriously, as several have said, it overpowers behind the altar...my current parish has such an overpowering and fluorscent lit panel behind altar and tabernacle, of the sacred heart, with a little plain wood crucifix off to one side, less than 3ft tall...both stained glass panels seem more as an artful entrance into the church and needing doors in them.
As to my own tastes in artwork, the human figures seem no better represented than a talented high school student drawing....my first thought on seeing it and the giant platter of giant flapjacks was, "They have IHOP in heaven!". The platter piled high with what? Unleavened bread well after Passover? It simply seems inaccurate as to dinner for three, and as to what actually would have been on the table, what was broken, or in how they would have been "seated" which was normally reclining at a lower table...a very modern western take on dining 2000yrs ago in and was suprised no silverware and salt and pepper shakers.
Again, it simply seems to jar in every way, raising more questions than it answers, and missing the key element of stained glass in illustrating some truth of the Church or her Head or her saints. Just my reaction to seeing the thing...
I think I can understand the artist's point that Jesus is head of the family and one of the primary things that families do together is "break bread". But for me, the issue is that it's a huge distraction. I agree with Fr. Fox that it would be fine in another location.
16 comments:
wrong on so may levels I don't know where to start, theologically, aesthetically, personally, design, all just WRONG
I think the problem is the heresy that Mass facing the people and in the vernacular has wrought. The Mass is a convivial meal based on the Last Supper. It is institutionalized Kumbaya. Even the cross to the side of the altar is a resurrected Christ. The sacrificial aspect of the Mass is symbolically nullified, although if the priest prays the Eucharistic Prayer in a way that it appears the words of the prayer, especially the words of institution, are directed to the congregation, it is illicit but still a valid Mass.
And if it appears that the priest directs the words, especially the words of institution, toward a tabernacle door, is that "illicit but still valid"?
Gawdy crap.
There is a Protestant Gospel tune called 'Welcome Table". It sings about how the person will sit at the welcome table and, among other things, "Tell God how you treated me". This is interesting in the desire for self elevation and peerage with our Saviour. The Gospel tune seems almost certainly to come from American Slave roots, so we might excuse the composer for the desire for overdue recognition. But the need for this conceit is excused by circumstances that, on deeper reflection, are unsettling when I consider how the composer was led to this circumstance by someone's misdeeds. So how does this sanctuary help the parishioner be humble himself, fiat voluntas tua, as a sacrafice? If we are giong to sit at the table with Christ are we willing, the next morning to bear his Cross? This makes me think of the recruit who joins the military because he likes the uniforms and does not fathom the cost of he is about to pay.
And if it appears that the priest directs the words, especially the words of institution, toward a tabernacle door, is that "illicit but still valid"?
your lack of direction is disoriented
What's funny is that it compositionally only works if the priest is ad orientem. Otherwise it looks like Jesus invited the priest to join Him at the table only for him to say "nah, I got my own thing going on" and turn his back to Jesus.
Also, it looks like a projected image from a children's book.
Referring to the Mass as the Lord's Supper is to use a Protestant term (see article 28 of the 39 Articles). The Council of Trent does not use it, nor does Vatican II (SC refers to the 'sacrifice of the Mass' or the 'Eucharistic sacrifice').
However, the 1969 GIRM has 'Cena dominica sive Missa'. As most of us know, this was withdrawn and reissued the following year with a new preamble. In addition, the word order of the above was changed to 'Missa seu Cena dominica'. The English translation has 'Mass - that is the Lord's Supper' which is deliberately misleading, since 'seu' does not mean 'id est'.
What Catholics call Mass is not the same as that which Protestants call the Lord's Supper - the theology is different - and to conflate the terms is at best mischievous, and at worst heretical.
The two images together, in that fashion, is absurd. The Jesuits prior to Vatican II often included the Last Supper on the front of ad orientem altars. Sacred Heart in Augusta and St. Joseph in Macon are examples, but above the altar was always a crucifix of some kind.
The Mass isn't the reenactment of the Last Supper of Holy Thursday, which is what is implied in the photo and that architecture. Holy Thursday's Paschal meal was the means by which the one Sacrifice of Jesus would be renewed in an unbloody (glorified) way, the Real Presence of Christ, the Risen Lord would be offered to the Father with His acceptance of Christ's Sacrifice and then returned to us, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity during the Rite of Holy Communion, with the priest concluding the Sacrifice by his consumption of the Holocaust.
Apart from that, the most important thing about Holy Thursday is the institution of the priesthood to offer that Sacrifice perpetually until the Lord returns, not to be the chef of a meal or at worst a moderator of a meal.
Bee here:
Looking closely at the image, I notice it is "post-Resurrection" since Jesus has the marks of the nails in his wrists. And you can see the feet with the nail prints as if through the table, and a slash in the robe on His right side, indicating the wound of the lance. So I guess it depicts imagined scenes of Jesus sharing food with the disciples after His resurrection. I'm not sure what that is trying to say about the Eucharist. I find the fact that Our Lord's hands are closed in fists even more puzzling. I would think hands lifted as if in a blessing would be more appropriate. It's hard to imagine what the artist was trying to convey. But hey, there's a woman there, so there's that. And way off to the right you can see a shadowy crucifixion scene, in the style of the JPII crucifix, and one other empty cross.
And I think the image might have mirror like qualities, because it appears you can see a reflection of some of the congregation. I would guess that would be the cutesy idea that at Mass we are a part of the meal with the Jesus and the disciples.
Besides the questionable theology inspiring it, it's just bad art, and not worthy of the altar of God. As someone said above, it looks like a drawing from a children's book.
The "crucifix" to the left is even more weird. The posture of the corpus looks to me like a guy about to make a high dive from a platform. I get the idea Our Lord is straining to break free of the nails and fly off the cross. That does not convey the suffering and death He suffered to save us from our sins, but I'm not versed enough in modernistic theology to know what that's all about.
And not a tabernacle in sight.
God bless.
Bee
Good eyes Bee! I think it is at the end of On the Road to Emmaus, where they came to know Him in the Breaking of the Bread.
I admire the faith of those who created and approved this artwork. What they were aiming at is good. It would be a good idea in another place.
Very good point. It is a lovely stained glass window but placed entirely in the wrong place and certainly overpowering of the altar at the least.
Fr. Fox suggested that it would be a good idea to put the artwork in another place. Yes, landfill.
Seriously, as several have said, it overpowers behind the altar...my current parish has such an overpowering and fluorscent lit panel behind altar and tabernacle, of the sacred heart, with a little plain wood crucifix off to one side, less than 3ft tall...both stained glass panels seem more as an artful entrance into the church and needing doors in them.
As to my own tastes in artwork, the human figures seem no better represented than a talented high school student drawing....my first thought on seeing it and the giant platter of giant flapjacks was, "They have IHOP in heaven!". The platter piled high with what? Unleavened bread well after Passover? It simply seems inaccurate as to dinner for three, and as to what actually would have been on the table, what was broken, or in how they would have been "seated" which was normally reclining at a lower table...a very modern western take on dining 2000yrs ago in and was suprised no silverware and salt and pepper shakers.
Again, it simply seems to jar in every way, raising more questions than it answers, and missing the key element of stained glass in illustrating some truth of the Church or her Head or her saints. Just my reaction to seeing the thing...
But, same as my current church, they DID try.....
I think I can understand the artist's point that Jesus is head of the family and one of the primary things that families do together is "break bread". But for me, the issue is that it's a huge distraction. I agree with Fr. Fox that it would be fine in another location.
Post a Comment